Seized gold without foreign markings: retracted statements and absent independent evidence cannot sustain confiscation or penalties.

Seized gold without foreign markings, found in bar, rod and bit form, was held not to establish smuggled origin by itself. The Revenue relied mainly on interception statements that were later retracted, but produced no independent evidence and did not examine the witnesses whose statements were used. The appellants, by contrast, produced business records and stock documents supporting the source and movement of the gold, corroborated by smelter statements. On that basis, the statutory presumption was treated as rebutted, and confiscation and penalties were considered unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the seized gold and the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable in the absence of foreign markings and in view of the appellants' explanation and supporting business records.

Analysis: The gold ultimately confiscated did not bear foreign markings and was in bar, rod and bit form rather than in standard form suggesting foreign origin. The case against the appellants rested principally on the statements recorded during interception, but those statements were subsequently retracted. The Revenue did not adduce independent evidence to prove that the gold was smuggled, and the witnesses whose statements were relied upon were not examined in adjudication as required by the evidentiary scheme. On the other hand, the owner produced business records and stock documents supporting the asserted source and movement of gold, and those records were corroborated by the statements of the smelters at Jaggayyapet and Chennai. The onus under the statutory presumption applicable to seized gold was therefore held to have been discharged by the appellants.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were unsustainable and liable to be set aside in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized gold lacks foreign markings and the person claiming it produces credible business records and corroborative evidence, the burden under the statutory presumption is discharged unless the Revenue proves smuggled character by independent evidence; retracted statements alone are insufficient.

---